Status of unmarried women in long term relationships should be taught in schools.

[prorsum]

A friend of mine has recently separated from her partner of 16 years, 2dcs under 14.

Legally she is entitled to nothing, common law wife is not a legal status. She has performed all the acts a sahm wife performs yet it counts for very little.

Her partner would not get married despite her wanting it and I know why, he knew.

She's not a money grabber, just wants some security for her children in case he meets someone else and has other dcs.

We've both done google to get some information as she cannot get legal aid and it's not happy reading.

I'm not man bashing, I think that it would be useful for both sexes to be aware of the implication of living together but it does impact more negatively on women.

It's really disgraceful that you should be forced to marry for the sake of protecting yourself financially.

Surely that's the whole purpose of marriage. It's an arrangement about a couple's property. Ignore the religious and other flim-flam it's about the money.

If this is an issue for schools at all ( and I tend more to the view that it's a parental responsibility rather than a school one) I'd rather schools focused on encouraging young women to be achieve their potential, be financially independent and have enough self worth to choose a partner that is decent so that they don't have to feel forced into a state of matrimony just to 'protect' themselves from men that might treat them like shit.

I've been with my DP for 13 years. One child and another on the way. No plans to marry. No desire to marry. I get a little sick of being told that's it's incomprehensible to others why I would procreate with someone I'm not married to. We're grown ups and it's perfectly possible as pps have said to arrange your affairs in a sensible way that covers most areas. The only thing you can't arrange for is widows benefits and IHT but in our case the we are happy to take any IHT hit because our other arrangements ensure that the house will be mortgage free should anything happen and any IHT would be minimal if any in our case and covered by having adequate insurance and other investments.

Going back to my original point. The best thing I can do to 'protect ' myself though is to maintain my own earning potential by continuing to work. If DP suddenly up and left me my earning potential is exactly the same as his.

The only thing you can't arrange for is widows benefits and IHT

This isn't true.

Enlighten me then? How do you prevent IHT kicking in if you don't have a spouse to transfer the allowance to? Are you thinking of some kind of trust arrangement to minimise one partners estate?

Access to Google is so much better now than it was then. Most of us have it all time if we have a smart phone. Technology is nothing like it was 16 years ago; I remember my first brick motorola and my dial up internet connection. I just can't with this idea that the knowledge was simple to access. It wasn't.

Yes it was.

This issue was regularly covered on the finance and women's pages of various newspapers back then. And in earlier decades.

I was well aware of it when I planned DC 20 years ago. The old wives tales about 'common law marriage' were WIDELY known to be myth. I remember the unmarried members of my NCT group comparing notes on solicitors for wills, next of kin, trusts etc, and THAT was almost 20 years ago.

It seems to me that the major issue that arises is the same as the real issue in the OP - one partner wanting marriage and the other partner not wanting marriage.

When that happens, couples drift on, one hoping for a proposal or a change of heart, neither addressing the situation with alternative legal provision because the whole issue has become a flash point or an elephant in the room. Eventually, if the relationship breaks down, there is huge financial and legal difficulty.

A lot of the marriage-enthusiast partners in those relationships probably DO know the legal ramifications but don't want to put it forward as a reason for marriage.

OTOH couples who are in agreement about cohabiting all along, are more likely to draw up legal agreements etc.

Worrid I was referring to your claim that you can sort everything except IHT and widow's benefit. That's not true because there are other things you can't sort out. For example, the new provision for couples to transfer some unused personal allowance between each other only applies to married couples. You can't sort that out any other way. There are also CGT allowances that spouses can pool, but I don't know a lot about that. Basically there is more to the tax spousal tax advantages than just IHT. This in addition to other things like one of you getting ill or dying suddenly abroad in a country where being an unmarried partner won't give you any right to be involved in medical decisions or repatriation of the body. And if your partner unilaterally changes their will, which they can whether you're married or not, you'll have considerably greater difficulty challenging that if you're unmarried.

Obviously these things may not be relevant to you, which is fair enough. I'm not saying everyone should get married for these reasons. It's just that it's not true to say the only things specific to marriage that can't be replicated elsewhere are widow benefits and IHT. There's much more.

Ah I see. Yes I guess I was referring to the main ones that we've considered in our situation but I do think IHT is probably the main disadvantage that there's no easy solution to. Personal allowance transference will be a big one for couples where one doesn't work which is another good reason for not becoming financially dependent on anyone else.

Yes I agree IHT is the main one. Personal allowance will be relevant for dual working couples too though, if one is part time, low income, on SMP or some combination of those. I've always worked but due to being part time and on ML, I won't be using my full personal allowance this tax year so will be looking to pass that on.

This is one of the reasons I am pro-marriage/civil partnership, and why my DH and I wanted to be married before having children. Although there's nothing wrong with cohabiting/being 'common law', and I've nothing against people that choose this, I do think a lot of security comes from being married. Sadly that's just the way life is. The courts etc all tend to favour it.

I've only read the OP. In general, I am surprised that schools don't teach fundamentals of law and finance to teenagers in that they will ultimately have to deal with them. I don't think there's a particular case for women or the living together situation, I think everything should be covered in that way. It can come as a horrible shock when you find out what you've got to hand over in a divorce as well and I feel strongly that young people don't know enough about that, or the legals ins and outs of marriage either!

I do think the "living together is not married" is pretty common knowledge though.

PS I've yet to hear of anyone's citizenship classes covering basic finance and legal stuff, though I gather basic finance is en route soon?

Recently a woman local to me got nothing except her dog when she split from her partner and business partner of more than 30 years. She was paid a nominal wage of something like £50 a week, and worked long long hours. He saw her left homeless, jobless, and with nothing. They had been lovers and friends and business partners for over 30 years - but there was no legal paperwork to cover her, and she has nothing now to show for a life devoted to his business. Their home was also all in his name. i really feel for her!

That is truly awful.

RagstheInvincible you are right. "Marriage by habit and repute" was abolished in Scotland in 2006, though such relationships existing prior to that still count.

www.lawpack.co.uk/cohabitation/articles/article1585.asp

Thanks Hirples

I'm not a lawyer, btw, but I made the post you quoted, so I did a bit of googling! Every day's a school day.